August 27, 2011

Here's the original document, the typed-up speech that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley gave to the assembled Justices 2 days after the so-called "chokehold" incident. As we know from the memos in the police investigation file, page 19, Justice Bradley said "she had typed these notes and rehearsed them like a speech because she wanted to tell the other justices how she was feeling."

In the original document, Bradley identifies "a right to go to my workplace without fear of verbal abuse or physical abuse." This is the workplace bully problem, and it's important, but the question I have is: Who gets to identify the bully?

We know from the investigation file that Bradley suddenly rushed up to Justice Prosser and got in his face. The interviews vary a bit in their emphasis on the speed with which she entered his personal space, but everyone agrees that the physical movement began with Bradley, and Prosser's physical act was a reaction to what she did. Bradley also acted first in identifying the bully, the one who needs to be controlled by the rights that others have to a "workplace without fear." But what if Prosser had acted first and characterized Bradley as the aggressor for rushing at him (with, according to some of the interviews, fists raised)? Then Bradley would have found herself on the receiving end, as the violator of the right she deems important. A right like that, if we are not careful, would empower the most aggressive person in the workplace!

Who gets to frame the story of the workplace bully? A person who fears accusation as the aggressor might opt for a preemptive strike, and that could have been the case here. During the incident, Justice Roggensack pulled Bradley away from Prosser and said, more than once, "This is not like you." Bradley describes herself becoming very emotional. Perhaps she was shocked by her own behavior and self-defensively saw it as in her interest to portray Prosser as the aggressor. From the memo on the Bradley interview, page 34:

Justice Bradley said as she was approaching Justice Prosser on June 13, "I was in control, I knew exactly what I was doing." Justice Bradley said when she approached Justice Prosser, she said to him, "Buddy, get out of my office." Justice Bradley said she remembers specifically saying the word "buddy" to him as she was telling him to leave her office. Justice Bradley recalled this because as she was talking to her daughter about this incident after the fact, her daughter had mentioned how the only other time she heard her use the term "buddy" was three years ago when her daughter and her were in Bangkok, Thailand, in a taxicab. Justice Bradley said the taxicab driver was not taking them where they needed to go so she felt she needed to take control and she remembers saying, "Buddy, you take us back where you picked us up." Justice Bradley said that was the only other time she could remember using the term "buddy". Justice Bradley said, "Buddy puts me in control and them in the diminutive." Justice Bradley again said she knew exactly what she was doing and saying to Justice Prosser on the evening of June 13, and added, "I intended to do it just the way I did it." Justice Bradley repeated several different times during our conversation with her that she was in control on June 13, 2011 and she knew exactly what she was doing the whole time.

Justice Bradley then said, "This aggressiveness they are trying to spin is not true."

Isn't it interesting that she denied her own aggressiveness right after describing herself as a woman in control and deliberately exercising domination? What if Justice Prosser had felt and acted in a similar way? He would have made a speech focusing on Bradley as the aggressor. He would have said, as Bradley said at the July 15th meeting:

I have a right... to enter my workplace without any fear of verbal abuse or physical abuse...

If I cannot get any assurance from you, the court, that this problem is going to be addressed, then I will go to the outside and take other means.

Go to the outside and take other means?! Is that a victim seeking the shelter of the protections of the law, or is it the bully trying to instill fear? It's not too clear! But we know that Bradley, in the original incident, deliberately sought control. And in the the June 15th meeting, she also sought control. She had her prepared speech. It was studded with legalisms and warnings. She demanded submission, or else. You don't need to look past her own words to see that.

They should all just shut up. If they cannot resolve their differences with reason, tact, and emotional balance, they should not be wearing black robes. They are not attacking each other, but the bench upon which they sit. Some look worse than others, but none of them look very good.

Clearly women do not have the right to ask "buddy" to leave their office because that is aggressive --demanding submission, and any movement towards said man is seen a rushing,although nobody can agree on the speed of the steps. But if "buddy" stands in the door way and makes pejorative remarks about folks inside the office, why that is not aggressive. And a taller man faced with a short dominatrix must defend himself at any cost. Side note to Shouting, if Prosser were a "real man" he would not need to play nanny in the doorway, but could eviscerate Bardley etc in the playing field where the written decisions are made public.

You do not have a right to not receive verbal abuse if you deserve it. Likewise you don't have a right to a "Workplace without fear" My company hands out layoff notices on Thursday. Lots of fear around the last few months.

The worst nightmare for men is a woman who threatens men with accusations of violence against a woman if he resists her domination.

Like "racist" and "thief" the threat to brand a man as a violent jerk so easily believed that there is no defense, EXCEPT a community that has known the man for 20 + years and will not believe the lie.

The problem today arises from the Propaganda Arts developed for governance and sales.

Now it is all about the narrative of lies.

The use of Jury of peers was a tool to protect from those lies originally. The Jurors who knew the accused were who was wanted.

Prosser "has issues," I think, but this whole crowd reminds me of my class in "family systems" theory, with all its talk of "dysfunctional" families. I.e., they are all feeding each others bad behavior.

Prosser needs to file a defamation suit against her. Nip this crap in the bud. She was having a meeting with work colleagues and when others attended, demanded one particular member leave, which she lacks the right to do. She then assaulted him and went to the police when he defended himself.

In an interview, Bradley said: "You can try to spin those facts and try to make it sound like I ran up to him and threw my neck into his hands, but that's only spin."I wonder if Bradley suspected that the testimony of several eyewitnesses was going to be made public. Not that she literally threw her neck into Prosser's hands, but from all accounts, none of this would have happened is she had a temperament that kept her out of other people's personal space during a heated office discussion.

I just think its too bad the "airing of grievances" in public is so easily done these days. Obviously there are events and circumstances that should not be hidden, but this is a relatively minor incident among adults of some stature, how did this resort to a critique of the use of the word "buddy" or how reasonable a defense of someone getting in your face should be.

I have to think these people have very little experience living and working in the real world. I wouldn't have made it to 25, if I didn't learn how to handle things like this.

"Prosser "has issues," I think, but this whole crowd reminds me of my class in "family systems" theory, with all its talk of "dysfunctional" families. I.e., they are all feeding each others bad behavior."

In spades. Now let's see...among other issues, who fits where in original family birth order?

If Bradley was a competent jurist she would have recognized that the events in her office would never, ever rise to the level of a crime. The mere fact she tried to set up Prosser for a crime means she is either so ignorant she should not be on the bench or is willing to make a false accusation for political purposes.

pst314: "It's easy to loathe Wisconsin "progressives". All you have to do is be around them awhile"

Frankly, it's very easy from afar as well. I've stated it for a year now: Madisonians have gotten very small. So small, no one even sees them any longer. Like the Unions, they've become large in their own mirror, inconsequential to the rest of the world.

What remains is the question: If these are the best and brightest, what exactly goes on at UW and environs?

Maybe gluing the doors shut on a local school there should be looked on as a good start.

I still do not understand why the Professor keeps worrying at this nonsense.

However. Did not this encounter take place in the chief justice's office? So Justice Bradley was not in "her" workplace.

And my understanding is that Justice Prosser is 6-7 inches shorter than Justice Bradley and about 20 years her senior. Also that he was standing in the chief justice's doorway with his fellow "Republican" justice behind him peering over his shoulders, so that he could not back up and get out of Justice Bradley's way when she charged him, and the best he could come up with was to throw his hands up to try to stop her and fend her off.

If I'm reading the account correctly, the fracas occurred in Bradley's office, but Prosser never addressed any words to Bradley, just to Abrahamson.

This is where roesch-voltaire leaves the rails:

But if "buddy" stands in the door way and makes pejorative remarks about folks inside the office, why that is not aggressive.

So Bradley is justified, by rv's argument, in using physical threats to defend anyone who is in her office from any negative words directed at them, and what's more, Prosser is at fault for raising his hands in defending himself from her rapid movement towards him.

Roesch-voltaire, your position is silly, untenable, and at variance with literal fact.

Note that she says SHE has a right to a workplace without fear or abuse, but that she doesn't say anyone else does.

And that's all this really is. Bradley wants to do whatever she wants without any fear of consequence or reprisal. She supports and endorses violence, fear, and abuse in the workplace when she's the one carrying it out.

So Bradley is justified, by rv's argument, in using physical threats to defend anyone who is in her office from any negative words directed at them, and what's more, Prosser is at fault for raising his hands in defending himself from her rapid movement towards him.

Exactly. The argument of the left is that Prosser can be abused in every way imaginable by Bradley, but if he goes so far as to in any way criticize or react to her behavior in a way with which she disagrees, he is in the wrong.

Liberals believe they have the right to abuse conservatives at will and to define anything a conservative does as abuse. It is the worldview of a spoiled teenager, and that is all Bradley is - a spoiled, worthless emotional teenager.

I think Bradley would do well to spend less time mastering the language of psycho babble, and more time studying the legal briefs she's paid to study. I can only assume that since her ability to win opponents over to her position through argument, she has embarked on a mission to simply remove them from the decision making process all together.

However, having worked in jobs where 2 employees were always "at each others throat" , the best advise I could give would be to fire them both.

It is wrong for Bradley to "play" a co-worker, but as an equal co-worker, Processor should be smart enough to not allow himself to be put in such a compromising position.

how did this resort to a critique of the use of the word "buddy" or how reasonable a defense of someone getting in your face should be."

The argument becomes convoluted because leftists like RV are desperately deflecting attention from the real issue. Bradley fabricated an event to get Prosser voted off the court so her political preferences could be enforced by the judiciary. Sadly too many people don't recognize this and allow such distractions to lead them into the wilderness.

If Abrahamson was in Bradley's office, I stand corrected on that, but it really does not make that much difference.

Justice Prosser and his cohort stayed in the hallway, just looking in through the doorway and asking what in the world was going on, so they did not invade anyone's space. Any way you slice it, it was Justice Bradley who decided to go physical.

And yeah, r-v's post is the first I have heard of any "pejorative remarks," by the male justices.

Come to think of it, did this altercation have more to do with sex than political affiliation?

The thought experiment with positions reversed is interesting to consider.

In this scenario, it is Bradley who makes an upsetting comment expressing lack of faith in a colleague and friend of Prosser. Prosser yells at Bradley demanding she leave the office and rushes at her with fists clenched. Bradley blocks Prosser's advance and make contact with his neck. Prosser cries out that he was choked and is physically separated by colleagues who tell him his behavior is "not like him" and that he was in no way "choked."

Prosser then contacts law enforcement and maintains he was the victim of a choke hold.

The political left, to whom matters of principle are far greater than political consequence, call for Bradley's resignation.

God help me if I ever find myself in a workplace environment with someone like Justice Bradley.

There's a technical term for people like her: It's "shit stirrer".

It's been my misfortune to have run across half a dozen people like that in various places. Some I worked with; some got involved in community organizations or political campaigns. Every durn one of them was Trouble with a capital "T".

It may not be entirely their fault; even paranoids have real enemies. And unpleasant people sometimes are given actual slights or other offense. But there's a reason why most successful small business organizations have a simple rule "Don't hire any jerks".

"But if "buddy" stands in the door way and makes pejorative remarks about folks inside the office, why that is not aggressive?"

There was an argument going on, about a court decision, in a situation that was extremely touchy, with some very strong personalities in disagreement. Yes, that was tense, but it was the business of the court, and it was what they were in the middle of. Prosser made a statement that Bradley didn't like, that wasn't even addressed at her, and she ran at Prosser, perhaps flailing her fists but at least moving her hand about near his face, pointing at the door.

There is an atmosphere of argument and intense debate on a supreme court, and I assume different judges have different levels of tolerance for it. When does one justice get to call it "verbal abuse" and order one of the participants in that argument to leave? When does she get to do that not merely verbally — or verbally abusively — but through intentional physical intimidation? I would say: just about *never.*

Interesting. No one seems to be mentioning Bradley's prior battery on a different male justice -- the one whose head she smacked for the offense of daring to address the Chief Justice by her first name. Apparently Bradley perceives herself as a sort of God-appointed Enforcer of Lefty Female Righteousness, and her violence and her attendant self-justifications are escalating hand in hand. Hate to think what Incident No. 3 is going to look like, but I suspect it's going to involve a major meltdown and real, honest-to-God physical damage because that's what happens with people like her when they're humored, not Stopped.

How did Bradley fabricate Prosser's hands on her neck, long enough to notice it was "warm"?

Bradley grossly exaggerated what Prosser did with his hands by calling it a "choke hold." She then used that in an attempt to remove Prosser from office. Bradley also spoke of feeling "eerie" and being overcome with emotion, typical female excuses. She probably first learned this getting out of speeding tickets as a young woman.

The investigators just published that Bradley's accusation Prosser choked her was a lie. Did you miss it? The Professor linked to it several times.

Or is your intent to show the best path for Democrats is pretending nothing that interferes with the narrative actually exists? That may work with choir, but those of us in teh real world just laugh at you.

Two hands around someone's neck is now called "touching". At least if the hands are on around liberal women. I'm sure Althouse won't mind at all if someone down at the square puts their hands around her neck.

I'd suggest that every day the Wisconsin Supreme Court is in session, Crooks reads out the daily horoscope. That way judges can figure out if they need to add padding under their "vestments." Or whatever it is you call their black bathrobes.

Ann Walsh Bradley was so out of line ... Most of Wisconsin didn't know the "public meeting law" wasn't breached.

That Opinion should have been PUBLISHED ... before 4 justices went looking for their Chief.

I mean she's old enough to have fallen down on the floor, ya know. And, even when she shouted "I can't get up," Crooks already went home.

Maybe, Prosser and the 3 other justices were on a mission of mercy?

Meanwhile, the Chief Justice should'a hit out in the toilet. Where she could have also closed the stall's door.

Ah, garage. Two hands were not "around" her neck. If your interpretations were accurate you wouldn't have to lie by inventing those extra details. When you find yourself doing it you need to train yourself to ask "is this lie so transparent all I'll accomplish is looking even more like an idiot".

For you the answer will always be yes, but at least you'll know what you're accomplishing.

-- Doesn't Justice Roggensack's comment, "This isn't like you," support that Bradley was not the bully. She's not like that. --Absent context, no, it doesn't. Justice Roggensack had composed an e-mail to Bradley, Feb 21, 2010, that says, in part, "your unspoken reasoning seems to be that if David is the problem, then of course you must not be part of the problem. However, you are very active participant in the dysfunctional way we carry on ... You often goad other justices by pushing and pushing in conference in a way that is simply rude and completely nonproductive. That is when David lost his cool. He is not a man who attacks others without provocation. Until you realize you are an active part of the provocation, not much will change."

Garage knows she lied, as does everyone else, but the skidbags could never admit that one of their precious progressive community is a howling bitch with major inter-personal issues. And the "spread the blame equally" crap because Prosser once used the b-word is just embarrassing to read. You people have no integrity. The maladjusted little crone will probably have to be dragged out of her office kicking and screaming, but if she had any dignity she'd just resign.

Althouse writes, "perhaps ran and perhaps failing her fists?" but I wonder if perhaps this assumption is based on exactly what as no where in the testimony did I read ran ( charge yes which is subjective), or flailing in describing Bradley's actions. I used the term pejorative on purpose to suggest that is more in line with what Prosser said to Chief Justice Abrahamson, when he said he no longer had confidence in her abilities because she had not finished her dissenting opinion on time-- according to him. And the statement you never know what was going to set him (Prosser) could mean exactly that-- why did this set him off? And how are we to believe. Prosser who claims to remember the warmth of Bradley's neck in contact with his fingers, but forgets he has thumbs. Is this because, as anyone knows from looking the anatomy of the hand, they would be pressed against her throat and he did not want to admit that? Now I agree it should not have come to a shouting shoving match, and I blame both parties, but because of my relationship with several women who are chairs, or managers in firms, I have heard many tales about how the older men move from reasonable arguments to insults, so I am not willing to say never to Bradley's action.

"your unspoken reasoning seems to be that if David is the problem, then of course you must not be part of the problem. However, you are very active participant in the dysfunctional way we carry on ... You often goad other justices by pushing and pushing in conference in a way that is simply rude and completely nonproductive. That is when David lost his cool. He is not a man who attacks others without provocation. Until you realize you are an active part of the provocation, not much will change."

I take the comment about feeling the warmth of her skin to mean he realized he was not touching clothing. Probably he was not aiming for her neck, but just something up above chest level. He'd be making an effort to not reach too far down.

Justice Gabelman is on record as saying one month into his position, and the justices were in Conference ... He started a sentence "Shirley ..." And, Ann Walsh-Bradley got up. Walked behind him. And, bopped him in the head.

She does seem to "swing with her fists," a lot.

Of course, Crooks went home early! He read what to do in the horoscope!

Isn't it wonderful that you have a justice on the Wisconsin Supreme's ... who is so into his horoscopes ... he shares them?

Seems to me that trend got started when feminists got the courts and companies to accept that "harassment" can be totally defined by the plaintiff/complainer. So if a woman gets asked out or even just complimented by a male she does not find attractive, that is sufficient to prove "harassment". Even if the defendant is found not guilty the stigma still attaches, especially in the workplace.

Let that same woman find the askee/complimenter to be a hunk, then there is no harassment. And of course, how is either male to know which category he's in until he says something?

40% of marriages used to occur between people who had met at work, a reasonably safe environment, where you got to know someone before the romance started. Now they are forced to use other, more dangerous places, online sites like Facebook, match.com, and craigslist and, before that, newspaper ads, where you have absolutely no idea what you're getting into.

This "crime is in the eye of the complainer" attitude led inevitably to all the "hate speech", "offensive speech", and other thoughtcrime laws and rules the left seeks to enforce on all of us, because, you see, they can read our minds and know our intent.

The campus speech codes are a particularly virulent example, where due process and presumed innocence are quaint anachronisms. Note also that these "crimes" can only be perpetrated against the left's approved victim groups, never by them.

(See related: the left's irrational and pathological hatred and fear of members of their approved victim groups that don't agree with them: Thomas, Cain, Palin, Bachmann, Gonalez, Fallaci, et al.)

Now I agree it should not have come to a shouting shoving match, and I blame both parties, but because of my relationship with several women who are chairs, or managers in firms, I have heard many tales about how the older men move from reasonable arguments to insults, so I am not willing to say never to Bradley's action.

Because all older men act exactly the same way, right?

And of course, you don't blame Bradley. Bradley is allowed to do whatever she wants and you will rationalize it because all older men -- a blatant and outright stereotype if ever there was one -- always insult women.

Furthermore, despite the pile of evidence that BRADLEY was verbally and physically abusive, you insist that her actions were justified and that Prosser must be punished.

Sick and disgusting. You allow Bradley to be an abusive violent bigot and justify it based on your stereotypical views of "older men".

Justice David Prosser was falsely triedThe crime was workplace bullying, guess who testifiedAbrahamson and Bradley and they both baldly liedAnd the newspapers they all went along for the rideHow can the life of such a manBe in the palm of some fool's hand ? To see him obviously framedCouldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land Where justice is a game.

"However. Did not this encounter take place in the chief justice's office? So Justice Bradley was not in "her" workplace."

no - 4 justices went to Bradley's office. There was no arranged meeting. They were looking for the CJ to talk about a press release.

That's what the argument was about - a press release & when to release the decision & there was some disagreement about if the justices had enough time to write. blah blah - they were already acting silly here.

That's part of what makes nobody look good here. 4 people popping into offices in the middle of a tense situation; getting into it with the CJ in somebody else's office-- stupid behavior all around.

How would you react if someone charged at you with their fisted raised?

Only Prosser has stated Bradley "charged" him. Regardless, would you treat your wife like that? I've been in a few heated arguments before, had a phone thrown and cracked across my face. [nice throw!] Never once did I think of putting my hands on a woman's neck. I see it's senseless debating this with the resident hacks though, there is literally no scenario where a conservative doesn't get full throated support, and a liberal doesn't get attacked.

"If someone is rushing at you in a threatening manner you can try to evade, block or attack. I think he picked the best option."

I don't understand why he didn't leave Bradley's office when he first started arguing with the CJ. (Bradley didn't set a meeting in her office & she didn't invite him in.) Bradley got upset but he continued to argue with the CJ in Bradley's office. That's the time to stop arguing in a 3rd party office & take it somewhere else.

actually just don't argue. do what you're going to do with the press release and don't argue with others about it.

Meanwhile, only Bradley has stated that Prosser choked her, and several witnesses have said that he didn't.

But of course, you blindly believe that.

And then we get to the entertaining part.

Regardless, would you treat your wife like that?

Nope, sorry. Bradley was violent and verbally abusive. She chose to escalate the situation.

You are stating that men deserve abuse and that all abuse given them is justified. Please state that whoever cracked a phone across your face was justified in doing so and that you should be punished and forced to acknowledge that their actions were completely correct.

Come on, garage. Admit that you were an abuser, just like you claim Prosser was. Then tell us why you haven't resigned from your job and turned yourself in.

Oh plaese garage, we're all reading the same reports and accounts. The only person maintaining the "choked" lie is you. Meanwhile, the report of Bradley striking another Justice in the head goes completely unchallenged, but you see no relevance there. Just like you lied about the swastikas, the threats, the vandalism, the violence, etc. throughout the protests, you're lying again. It's all you know how to do. Sad little life.

It clearly wasn't a block -- which is a good thing because it would have been dangerous to do a throat block.

Grabbing her around the throat was actually less dangerous, but a real stupid place to grab. But it was clearly a reflex.

Bradley stomped over "theatrically" and pointed at the door. She got in his face & ordered him out of her office. He had a reflexive action & was most likely surprised.

Prosser was acting "theatrically" in his behavior with the C.J. -- in somebody else's office. Not cool.

And then Bradley escalated further - and things got even more ridiculous.

(And look - honestly - I'd be annoyed if sombody came in my office uninvited and started arguing with a 3rd party. But of course I wouldn't order anybody out of the office. And I wouldn't march over to them & demand that he leave.)

Remember, folks, garage has stated that women are never to blame or at fault in any action with men, and that any action a woman takes against a man is purely defensive and due to the fact that the man is abusing her.

Now what does garage himself admit happened to him?

I've been in a few heated arguments before, had a phone thrown and cracked across my face. [nice throw!]

Therefore, since this has happened to him, garage is, by his own standards and admittance, an abusive individual who has committed acts of verbal and physical violence against women. After all, why would a woman attack him unless he had attacked her first? The fact that a woman cracked a phone across his face proves indisputably that he had threatened her verbally and that he had committed a violent act against her.

Lamar63 - "They should both resign because of the discredit they have brought about to themselves and the court."

The Problem is that the school administrator approach doesn't fly in the workplace where torts are created if the supervisor "discipline" of termination does not warrant such.

For the Court, apparantly you have three justices that have said nasty, disparaging things about one another (Bradley, Abrahamson and Prosser), at least one Justice airing dirty laundry to the media (Bradley)- bringing disredit on the court. Then two Justices in an altercation in which Bradley appears to be the aggressor after Prosser said he had no regard for Abrahamson's judicial temperment. Plus, another Justice, Gableman, that was hit in the head by Bradley for saying something about Abrahamson that Bradly thought was "disrespectful" (calling her Shirley). And one Justice that made false criminal accusations in public media against a public official in good standing with the Bar. (Bradley and the Choking...)

Now, there is a common factor in all these events. Bradley.

Taking the "everyone is equally at fault" school administrator approach...would that extend to going past Bradley and Prosser to getting rid of Abrahamson and Gableman for saying something that provoked Bradley to strike him in the head??

Taking the "everyone is equally at fault" school administrator approach...would that extend to going past Bradley and Prosser to getting rid of Abrahamson and Gableman for saying something that provoked Bradley to strike him in the head??

No, just Gableman. Because, as has been made clear here by the board liberals, Bradley's behavior is not her fault; everyone provokes her, and she is just responding. She is perfectly justified in everything she does; everyone else is out to get her.

>>I don't understand why he didn't leave Bradley's office when he first started arguing with the CJ. (Bradley didn't set a meeting in her office & she didn't invite him in.) Bradley got upset but he continued to argue with the CJ in Bradley's office. That's the time to stop arguing in a 3rd party office & take it somewhere else. <<

The investigative file clearly states that Prosser never entered Bradley's office at any time during the dispute. Do you have access to facts that say otherwise?

"Taking the "everyone is equally at fault" school administrator approach...would that extend to going past Bradley and Prosser to getting rid of Abrahamson and Gableman for saying something that provoked Bradley to strike him in the head??"

I don't think it's that people think they were "equally" at fault -- it's that they both engaged in unprofessional behavior.

They were so unprofessional it's hard to care who was more at fault.

It all starts to sound like, "Mom - he made me get mad!" "She made me do it!" "He pulled my pig tail!"

Bradley didn't make Prosser snatch a microphone from a reporters hands, or charge at Tim Carpenter while in the Assembly. Face it, Prosser has serious fucking anger issues, none of the other conservative justices seem to have the same problem. What does that tell you?

Lost in all of this is they were debating muscling the union busting bill through by that Monday, under pressure from Fitgerald, so that wouldn't have to vote again on it. Proving what everyone knows -- they are nothing more than a partisan arm of the Republican majority.

Bradley didn't make Prosser snatch a microphone from a reporters hands, or charge at Tim Carpenter while in the Assembly. Face it, Prosser has serious fucking anger issues, none of the other conservative justices seem to have the same problem. What does that tell you?

It tells us that you are getting desperate, garage, and need to get rid of Prosser at all costs.

It also shows the length to which violent abusers and liars like yourself and Bradley will go to do it.

Now, why don't you answer the question? You state a woman cracked a phone across your face. Why did you violently assault her in the first place, since you state that any action by a woman against a man proves that the man made her do it?

Also, why don't you be honest and state that you don't care about violence and violent actions, such as are clearly documented in Bradley's history?

Lost in all of this is they were debating muscling the union busting bill through by that Monday, under pressure from Fitgerald, so that wouldn't have to vote again on it. Proving what everyone knows -- they are nothing more than a partisan arm of the Republican majority.

Actually, the issue was that the opinion was already written, and that Bradley and Abrahamson were stalling and refusing to publish it.

Which would make it clear that they were nothing more than partisan puppets of the Obama minority.

Now again, garage: you state that a woman violently cracked a phone across your face. You also have stated that nothing a woman does to a man is her fault, and that any time a woman does such a thing, the man caused it by violently assaulting and attacking her.

Will you confirm that you violently assaulted and attacked a woman? You admit that a woman violently cracked a phone across your face: therefore, by your own logic and reasoning, you violently assaulted and attacked her to cause her to do it.

Face it, Prosser has serious fucking anger issues, none of the other conservative justices seem to have the same problem. What does that tell you?

The report supports the idea that Prosser has a temper. People who concluded in the absense of other data that Prosser may have made a career-ending mistake were justified. I'm on record on this blog saying that if Prosser choked someone in anger, he had to resign.

Now that the fact are in, it appears he doesn't have a violent temper, but that perhaps Bradley does. Neither are going to lose their job. Both should be ashamed. The greater shame lies with Bradley.

Bradley lied to get Prosser voted out so she could strike down Republican initiated legislation she didn't like. Garage claims this proves the court is a "partisan arm of the Republican Party". So sad.

... but because of my relationship with several women who are chairs, or managers in firms, I have heard many tales about how the older men move from reasonable arguments to insults, so I am not willing to say never to Bradley's action.

Ah, in the space of a few hours, these allegations from R_V have changed from things that he actually knows happened to hearsay.

-- I assumed if he didn't have space to back up, and she was yelling "get out of my office," that he was in her office. --Picture a three room suite, rooms "A", "B", and "C". Room "B" has a door to the hallway, and rooms "A" and "C" are accessed from room "B." Bradley's personal office is room "C." Her clerk is in room "A." All the justices present, except Abrahamson and Bradley, are in the middle room, "B." Bradley left room "C" in order to get to Prosser. By all accounts, including Bradley's, the "Get out" command didn't come until after she was in Prosser's personal space.Prosser says he thought his exit to the rear was blocked by a credenza or desk. From a sketch of the layout, including people, Prosser didn't have a way to exist with split second notice. He didn't expect Bradley to "explode out of her office" (Prosser's description, so she did manage to obtain the advantage of surprise in her attack.

... but because of my relationship with several women who are chairs, or managers in firms, I have heard many tales about how the older men move from reasonable arguments to insults, so I am not willing to say never to Bradley's action.

That relationship, R_V... does it include the provision of toilet paper to wipe the shit off your nose?

Notice Garage defending actual thugs, including those attempting to steal from the Professor, then apply the term to those who don't deserve it. It's almost like he doesn't know what the term means. I wonder why one party gets a pass and the other earns it despite not meeting the base requirements? Hmmm, what could that difference be?

Why can't a political party dictate when a decision should be made by the impartial judicial branch????

Right, garage, just like when your Judge Sumi was so obediently following the dictates of her owners in the Obama Party.

Meanwhile, why won't you answer the question? You state a woman cracked a phone across your face. Why did you violently assault her in the first place, since you state that any action by a woman against a man proves that the man made her do it?

Also, why don't you be honest and state that you don't care about violence and violent actions, such as are clearly documented in Bradley's history?

Just epic hackery. No wonder cons love dimwitted thugs like Walker. He's one of them.

Of course, since your Obama Party has had its clock cleaned and been completely outmaneuvered by said "dimwitted thug", with immensely positive results on the state budget and economy, what does that make them?

-- Particularly the part about the plant being in his way. --I don't recall him mentioning a plant, just furniture. But Prosser was also "surrounded" by his cohorts, so, before Prosser could leave, a couple other justices would have to get out from between him and the exit from room "B" to the hall. The furniture prevented him from backing up. In the sketch, the furniture is titled "book shelve," and is maybe 2x3 feet in footprint, sitting next to the assistant (receptionist, if you will; not clerk, who has a separate room) desk.

Sounds to me like the leadership of this court is seriously lacking. How can well educated people in such a responsible position behave so badly? Does this kind of crap go on in other court systems? Some thing is seriously flawed. How does it get corrected? Unbelievable!!!

I don't remember reading that she put her hands in a chokehold on his neck, This isn't even close. He crossed the line and if that to you is a question of framing the issue, you are clueless. In fact, that is considered assault in many areas and if done by a non-justice could result in a felony conviction in Wisconsin.

Chef MojoIf Big Gov ever comes after you or the restaurant industry, using blunt force trauma from legislative numbers and paid partisan hacks choking bills to victory down your throat, I will have to remember to laugh really really hard. Normally I would never revel in someone's misery, but in your case I'd have to make a special exception.

If Big Gov ever comes after you or the restaurant industry, using blunt force trauma from legislative numbers and paid partisan hacks choking bills to victory down your throat, I will have to remember to laugh really really hard. Normally I would never revel in someone's misery, but in your case I'd have to make a special exception.

So, if Chef Mojo is treated the way Obama treated car dealerships owned by Republicans...

...or the way Obama treated Gibson guitars...

...or the way Obama treats states with Republican leadership like SC or TX...

Chef MojoIf Big Gov ever comes after you or the restaurant industry, using blunt force trauma from legislative numbers and paid partisan hacks choking bills to victory down your throat, I will have to remember to laugh really really hard. Normally I would never revel in someone's misery, but in your case I'd have to make a special exception.

Government has been jamming crap down my throat for years in the form of taxes, regulations and general stupidity, garage. I've managed to adapt to constant, harassing chang.

Before the "4 troopers" march around the court house ... It was 3 Justices who went to Justice Prosser ... and recommended tohim TO PUBLISH THEIR MAJORITY OPINION ... that the "public notice" law HAD NOT BEEN BREACHED!

Then, all the delays in the world ... Where the Wisconsin "sub-premo's ... where trying to cover up publishing anything ... could'a dance as long as they wanted to with the "MINORITY REPORT" ... Or whatever those jackasses wanted to do ...

BECAUSE THE MAJORITY's opinion would be "out there" ... IN VIEW!

But David Prosser said to the other 3 justices .... "that this wouldn't be right."

That's when the 4 ... (At 5:30 PM) ... with Crooks already gone home ... That the

INCIDENT begins ...

Start the music.

Because you got TWO dames ... who DIDN'T WANT THE WORLD TO KNOW that

Wisconsin's PUBLIC NOTICE LAW had not been breached by Governor Walker.

Jeez.

The union folk will get to vote.

They don't have to go along with their unions ... who rip them off for dues money ...

That goes to do what?

You think we're at an impasse?

Hm?

On July 26th ... Justice Prosser was sworn in for his TEN YEAR TERM!

Prosser has to deal with Bradley? Or with the VIPER CROOKS? Really?

My guess is that Shirley, the Chief Justice ... is working hard at gluing her mask back on!

If Mark Bradley had guts ... he'd tell his wife to drop her blue glasses ... And, stop having hissy fits. But he won't.

He's afraid when his wife shouts out "BUDDY" ...

I'd even guess he knows how to go to sleep UNDER the bed! Or on the roll-away.

It sounds from the sketch like he didn't have room to back up so he acted reflexively.

I've argued from the first I heard about it that he probably acted reflexively and not with bad intent. (Not that it was a good idea to argue with co-workers.) The whole thing is bloody annoying to hear about from a group of people who should know better.

>>Only one made up a lie and tried to use it to get the other voted off the court so she could protect her preferred legislation.<<

...>>Bradley lied to get Prosser voted out so she could strike down Republican initiated legislation she didn't like. Garage claims this proves the court is a "partisan arm of the Republican Party". So sad.<<

Justice Prosser was re-elected for a 10 year term in April 2011. This "choke" incident occurred in June, 2011. There was no chance he could be "voted out" when he had already won re-election.

True, she didn't want him voted out. Very true. She wanted him destroyed. Impeached, possibly imprisoned. That's the kind of evil harridan she is. And that's the kind of woman that Madison is proud to have as part of their judiciary. She's a glorified gutter rat and should be kicked out on her sorry ass.

-- In fact, that is considered assault in many areas and if done by a non-justice could result in a felony conviction in Wisconsin. --I don't think so. The crime of assault, in Wisconsin, requires an injury, and Bradley makes no allegation of injury. Further, to be a felony, the injury has to be serious.That said, this case could be tried as a civil case, with Prosser and Bradley making cross claims. According to black letter law, Bradley loses; and Prosser has a right to make contact in order to prevent unwelcome contact.There is zero basis in law to defend Bradley's action.

-- Not that it was a good idea to argue with co-workers. --Argument between the players is part and parcel of the job. See majority and dissenting opinions, sometimes dramatically at odds. The justices are supposed to be able to air their opinions and rationales, and when the inevitable disagreement arises, to acknowledge it, and move on with the work of composing the legal decision.I think anger is not an unnatural part of that; but it ought to dissipate, and when it arises, the person having it ought to be able to refrain from initiating an act of physical intimidation.Bradley doesn't even admit any wrong on her part; in her argument, she is completely justified in everything she did.Decent people will shun her and her kind.

Ever hear of Bill Kunstler? He provided a basis for Bradley to use the law like she did.

Liberals, who are very much in the real world when they wield power, like any member of any state supreme court, understand so much more about reality than many people commenting here.

Many seem to resent that liberals actually fight, literally in Bradley's case, for their ideals.

The lack of consequence, as of now at least, does stink. That doesn't mean that powerful liberals don't live in reality though.

For real, when Bradley says jump, many citizens in WI obey and ask "how high Justice?" They have to. The Justice has power over them.

In reality, the Justice has been told she is incredible in many ways: I.Q., kindness, temperment, morally, and perhaps most importantly, her uniqueness: SHE made it to a position of great power, not you (I premume) or I.

I think the proper reaction is respect, but extreme wariness and suspicion of Grand Irredeemable Malfeasance in the past and continuing today.

"Argument between the players is part and parcel of the job. See majority and dissenting opinions, sometimes dramatically at odds."

yeah, but they weren't arguing about dissenting opinions or even a legal dissagreement. Usually that sort of thing is done with collegiality.

I've never seen or heard anything like this. Although it would be interesting to hear if other courts have ever broke down like this. I don't think SCOTUS broke down during Dred Scott or Plessy or Roe for example.

I wonder if anybody knows of anything during the Civil War, for example?

-- I think the proper reaction is respect, but extreme wariness and suspicion of Grand Irredeemable Malfeasance in the past and continuing today. --Respect? She's either demented or dishonest. She merits respect the same way the Mafia does, on account of she wields power, but Bradley is morally corrupt.

Well, I read all 70 pages of that report. Bleh. Some things that stand out:

1) Justice Bradley and her friends think that she usually has a "calming" influence on Justice Prosser but everyone else describes it as "goading."

2) Justice Bradley and her friends make repeated phone calls to the investigating detectives to add details to their testimony or to qualify their previous words, but no one else does. They seem to be either straining to control the narrative or to avoid being caught in inconsistencies.)

3) The testimony of Chief Justice Abrahamson's law clerk indicates that in the immediate aftermath the Chief Justice was not yet totally into the Bradley narrative. She asked him what he would do if someone got in his personal space (paraphrasing). He said he would put his hands up to shield himself or something. And he wasn't in the room when it happened.

4) Justice Prosser seems to be the kind of guy who speaks in outbursts, but the majority of his coworkers are able to adapt and work with him despite his personality.

5) There is an odd dynamic between the Chief Justice and Justice Bradley. One of the interviewees say they often walk around "arm in arm" and more than one said they are like mother and daughter. If I understand correctly, the Chief Justice is like the manager of the other justices. This kind of relationship between manager and employee is not appropriate.

6) The last time I experience this kind of behavior, I was in 5th grade. Wisconsin has a serious problem in their Supreme Court, and it will continue as long as both Abrahamson and Bradley are on it together. Even if they succeeded in getting rid of Prosser, they would just turn their attention to a new target after he left. Bradley is a triangulator and Abrahamson enables her.

-- but they weren't arguing about dissenting opinions or even a legal dissagreement. Usually that sort of thing is done with collegiality. --The four justices in the majority were seeking confirmation of Abrahamson's previous commitment to release either the opinion, or a public promise for timing of release of the opinion. This sort of issue is also common in a workplace, and I agree, usually is worked out without anybody initiating an act of physical intimidation.I suspect this sort of bad behavior is much more common than the public is aware of, because the players manage to keep the incidents secret. For this one, Bradley, Abrahamson, or one of the others who was privy to the incident (Bradley's hubby; Bradley's clerk) believed Prosser could be damaged in the court of public opinion by leaking a misleading narrative to the press.Hoist on her own petard comes to mind.

In-Chambers Shoving Match Alleged Between Two Texas Judges - May 2009 (Both judges are Democrats)"11/29/01 - Judge Charles R. Jones has been suspended for one month without pay for getting into a shoving match with fellow Judge Steven Plotkin. Both landed on the floor. Plotkin sustained a bloody nose." (from Louisiana: State Elections)How about Abrahamson's reported practice of shouting out in mock fear, when Prosser walks by Abramason's open office door?

" "11/29/01 - Judge Charles R. Jones has been suspended for one month without pay for getting into a shoving match with fellow Judge Steven Plotkin. Both landed on the floor. Plotkin sustained a bloody nose." (from Louisiana: State Elections) How about Abrahamson's reported practice of shouting out in mock fear, when Prosser walks by Abramason's open office door?"

Love the TX example. We need a new reality TV show about Justices Behaving Badly. Or Wisconsin and TX could start a Justice Swap.

RE: Abrahamson. Yeah, very wierd and juvenile. But I don't think it was mock fear -- I think they are all so caught up in their own narratives and emotion that they believe it. I think the court has divided into factions to the point that each side suspects the other of nefarious intentions and deeds.

-- Love the TX example. --You have to click on the link to read the Texas case. The one that I excerpted describes a pair of Louisiana judges.-- But I don't think it was mock fear ... --I think she is being obnoxious and trying to goad Prosser. If she had fear, she'd shut her door.

Re: The Chief Justice crying out whenever Justice Prosser walks by her open door.

I thought that was just plain strange. It made me question her competence. I mean medically. If she truthfully thinks he is intent on harming her physically, then one would think she would have done something within official channels long ago. That is, if she is able to think clearly. At the very least, she seems unable to think judiciously.

"...Apparently, she's a liar AND a hypocrite. But then again, she's a contemporary Wisconsin liberal..."

and "...More worrisome is the emerging psychological profile of Justice Bradly. She's a bitter, aggressive, lying little gnome who apparently can't control her emotions..."

This female Supreme Court Justice seems incapable of controlling herself, and believes that she has some type of entitlement to THREATEN someone who disagrees with her. She is emotionally unstable and probably makes her legal decisions based on her "feelings".